The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and PoliticsTrivialize Religious Devotionby Stephen L. Carter. Book review by William B. Lindley
This is the book that President Clinton praised when he told a group of religious leaders that America is too secular. This alone turned the book into a best seller. For this reason and for its content, it needs to be carefully examined by those who are concerned about religious liberty and about religion in politics. The publicity arising from Clinton's spin on the book might lead us to believe that the "trivializing" that Carter complains of is all the fault of us seculars. Not so. Carter identifies three different ways in which religion is trivialized (his word) in public discourse: (1) the general contempt and disregard for religious faith by the secular society and particularly by the universities and the media (this is what we already knew); (2) civil religion-Carter isn't against civil religion, but he notes that "the seeming ubi-quity of religious language in our public debates can itself be a form of trivialization..."; and (3) the use of religious arguments by the right in their efforts to gain political power. Carter is a devout Episcopalian who believes that the separation of church and state is a "sensible doctrine." The church-state separationists in the trenches may be surprised at this, as the publicity has emphasized his support of "accommodation" (to which he devotes a chapter of his book). Let's first take up the points in this book where I agree with Carter. (1) Carter strongly favors free exercise, and recognizes that it most needs defending when minority religions are under attack. He, like strong separationists, believes that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it tromped on a Native American for using peyote in a religious ceremony. (This is Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the infamous "free exercise is a luxury" decision.) The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, now law, restored the "compelling interest" requirement, and Carter and I are happy about this. We agree that it is bad to "trivialize" religion coercively. (2) Carter opposes group prayer in public schools. He fully recognizes its coercive nature and supports the Supreme Court decisions in this area. (3) He devotes a whole chapter to "The 'Christian Nation' and other horrors" and faults both the left and the right for choosing a political stance and tailoring their theology to fit. (4) He makes the point that clashes between the free exercise and establishment clauses are inevitable with big government, noting that such clashes were few and far between in the early days, when we had small and limited government. (I regret that he does not come out against big government per se.) He devotes Chapter 8 to the problem of "Religious Autonomy in the Welfare State." (5) His arguments on constitutional issues are principled and carefully done. For example, while stating his misgivings on the three-pronged Lemon criterion for whether a law violates the establishment clause, he notes several decisions which were in effect end-runs around Lemon. While he and other religious people may be happy with the outcomes in these cases, he notes that the decisions were unprincipled, adding to the confusion rather than ending it. Now, what do I dislike about the book? First and foremost, Carter does not (adequately) distinguish between the government and private sectors when he laments the lack of respect for devoutness and cites his numerous examples. The private sector, the free speech area, is what Carter calls the "public square." Any and all respect that religion is to get there, it must earn. Since, by his statistics, far more people are devout than not, devoutness should be able to hold its own. No matter what people may claim, devoutness is not a "hothouse flower." Jonathan Rauch, in his book Kindly Inquisitors (reviewed in Truth Seeker Vol. 121, #2), says: "We have a positive moral obligation to be thick-skinned." I think that Carter is not living up to this obligation. Secondly, Carter seriously misunderstands the First Amendment. He repeatedly says that it is there "to protect religion from the state, not the state from religion." No! It is there to protect the people: the free exercise clause to protect them from government interference with their religion, and the establishment clause to protect them from an inherently coercive alliance of government and religion. Thirdly, while he devotes a whole chapter to the creationism issue, I think he misreads it fundamentally. He says that creationism should not be taught in the public schools, but only because it is bad science: the religious motivation for it should be ignored. Problem: there is no constitutional prohibition of a government act or policy on the grounds that it is stupid. Without the legislative attempt to establish a religious doctrine, there is no constitutional issue to litigate. Carter also claims that creationism is wrong but not irrational, Bible inerrancy being an alternate epistemology. It is odd that he should defend fundamentalism as rational, when the hatred of reason is at the center of some Christian faiths (if not of Carter's). From Paul (especially I Corinthians 1), through Tertullian, Luther, and Kierkegaard to the present time, the tradition of abominating rationality is alive and well within Christendom and, no matter the window-dressing, creationism is at root a part of this tradition. Fourthly, he favors government financial aid for religious private schools. This separates him from mainstream church-state separation. The money issue may not be life-or-death, but it is basic. No tax for religion. One particular tiny case illustrates the disagreement between Carter and me: Roberts v. Madigan (1990). A public school teacher was forbidden to display his Bible on his desk and read it during class while not teaching. He sued and lost. Carter thinks this is terrible, and many agree with him. I think the court made the right decision. It was not a case of free exercise in the public square, but of religion in authority. This is a close call, and one good thing about this book is that it has quite a few close calls; sometimes the reader will agree with Carter, and sometimes not, but the reader will think. In summary, I think Carter is wrong more than he is right; but he is thoughtful, and he expresses his views earnestly and considerately. While we seculars may not endorse his program, we should take pains to become well acquainted with the tremendous variety within American Christianity. In the political arena, we must be able to identify those Christians with whom we can find common ground, and be very selective in choosing and acquiring enemies. ©1993, ISBN 0-465-02647-8, hardback, 328 pages, $25.00. BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd St., New York, NY 10022-5299. Tel: (212) 207-7057; Toll-free: (800) 242-7737.
Table of Contents | 1994 Issues | Subscribe Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996 |